GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

5150Joker said:
The issue I see is Asus diluting the Nvidia brand by putting it under the same gaming brand as AMD which is inferior. Why should Nvidia accept this under GPP? Of course Asus could opt out as could every other AIB and OEM. So why are they signing up?
Click to expand...


Who does 'ROG' belong to? And who therefore gets to decide what tech goes into it? Hint: it is not ...or rather.... it should not be nVidia.
 
fingerbob69 said:
Who does 'ROG' belong to? And who therefore gets to decide what tech goes into it? Hint: it is not ...or rather.... it should not be nVidia.
Click to expand...


If ASUS, puts nV's brand with AMD's brand in the same ROG brand, yeah then all three have say on what goes in the ROG brand. But ASUS better be fully aware if the product owners are not happen about the ROG brand, the better change it their liking otherwise..... The ROG brand means nothing without those products being there. Right now, nV's brand is stronger so......

here is a link of sub branding and brand extensions.

https://brogan.com/blog/pros-and-cons-sub-branding-and-brand-extension

Asus ROG is actually creating the sub brand for Radeon and Geforce, Major problem here, that is kinda bad marketing, cause the main brand actually should be Radeon or Geforce. ROG is insignificant in the eyes of nV in this particular view.

They also think its causing fragmentation of their brand, what fragmentation is, is fairly simple, too many products in one batch, its all confusion, I don't' think this is the case here, but it sounds like they feel that way by what was written.

https://www.inc.com/jeff-pruitt/how-to-brand-multiple-products-without-confusing-customers.html

Now this goes into watering down sub brands by other sub brands

Because most sub-brands are visually and tonally in line with each other, bad publicity or a colossal failure in even a smaller venture can have disastrous consequences. We've seen this play out with well-known brands like Samsung with its Galaxy Note 7 and even Apple --even the most diehard Apple fans will abandon the brand across the board if one product doesn't meet their expectations.
Click to expand...

They DEFINITELY feel this is going on. Question, did Vega meet some peoples expectation? Since Anarchist4000 is here and didn't bother reading everything I wrote, did it meet his expectations of Vega, I mean Vega with Async compute and FP16 and all the other nonsense going to go up against the 1080ti or even Volta lol? Do we kinda see why nV wants their brand as a separate identity? But the problem is AIB's don't want to lose their brand nor do they want to lose geforce as a sub brand of their main brand. Well that is where they make the most money. Kinda sucks to be an AIB right? This goes to OEM's too. They need to keep their partner who gives them the tech to make the money they do happy.

And if we look at the ROG graphics card boxes yeah they really do look the same yeah they could have geforce or radeon on them, but at a quick glance people might miss that, even better, look at the ROG cards, if we didn't know what each card was about, they really do look the same.
 
Last edited:
Nicely done Kyle, thank you for keeping us informed.

Sure feels like an abuse of a dominant position on nVidia's part. Really too bad there isn't more natural competition at this level these days. Maybe it will get more interesting as mobile and VR/AR continue to progress. I'd love to see what Apple would do if they found themselves squaring off for graphics superiority (in some future paradigm).
 
razor1 said:
If ASUS, puts nV's brand with AMD's brand in the same ROG brand, yeah then all three have say on what goes in the ROG brand. But ASUS better be fully aware if the product owners are not happen about the ROG brand, the better change it their liking otherwise..... The ROG brand means nothing without those products being there. Right now, nV's brand is stronger so......
Click to expand...

What the hell are you saying exactly ??? I'm not trying to sound to strong here but your logic is seriously flawed here.

ROG doesn't belong to Nvidia. No OEM card makers brands belong to NV or AMD or any other part supplier. Perhaps Samsung should demand control over those brands cause they are using Samsung memory on the cards. Perhaps Samsung should tell all the OEMs they are cut off unless they only put samsungs best of the best most expensive offerings in their game lines, or tell them putting any other companies memory in their gaming line will result in loss of Gold member status. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed. NV / AMD are part suppliers in the relationship nothing more.

AMD and NV have ZERO say in what Asus puts in any brand that belongs to Asus. Putting X or Y GPU in that card doesn't make it NV or AMD or Intel property.

NV is using their current market position to block their competition long term. We get it you yourself love NV and don't see the issue with your favorite company hijacking PC card manufacturers brands. Regardless of how you feel about NV in general... this move is both unethical and illegal. Outrage may kill it in the cradle, if not yes no doubt Kyle will have law suits to report on for years to come.
 
ChadD said:
What the hell are you saying exactly ??? I'm not trying to sound to strong here but your logic is seriously flawed here.

ROG doesn't belong to Nvidia. No OEM card makers brands belong to NV or AMD or any other part supplier. Perhaps Samsung should demand control over those brands cause they are using Samsung memory on the cards. Perhaps Samsung should tell all the OEMs they are cut off unless they only put samsungs best of the best most expensive offerings in their game lines. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed. NV / AMD are part suppliers in the relationship nothing more.

AMD and NV have ZERO say in what Asus puts in any brand that belongs to Asus. Putting X or Y GPU in that card doesn't make it NV or AMD or Intel property.

NV is using their current market position to block their competition long term. We get it you yourself love NV and don't see the issue with your favorite company hijacking PC card manufacturers brands. Regardless of how you feel about NV in general... this move is both unethical and illegal. Outrage may kill it in the cradle, if not yes no doubt Kyle will have law suits to report on for years to come.
Click to expand...


editing the post, keep going, yeah they do they have a lot of things to say about branding of their products. Without nV or AMD, ROG, ASUS, has no graphics card sales division, no graphics cards period.

If nV or AMD doesn't like a branding of a particular AIB, they can just say sorry we aren't selling to you. Its their choice to make that happen. You think ASUS could stop that?

Look its like Intel vs nV with the IP of chip sets for motherboards. Intel didn't need nV anymore, they said screw you, you can't make them anymore, no more IP for you. Same thing here, we don't like your brand and sub brands, screw you, we won't sell to you.

What legal recourse can ASUS take if nV says no more GPU's form us for you? Could ASUS get a settlement like nV did from Intel, nV from Intel as different, they were making boards and their own chip sets based on that IP. In this case Asus, is making boards based on a already made GPU. They can get some money out of nV by saying we have made X amount of boards, don't think it can go much more than that.

multi IHV's AIB's and OEM's have their backs on a wall on this one.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
editing the post, keep going, yeah they do they have a lot of thing to say about branding of their products. Without nV or AMD, ROG, ASUS, has no graphics card sales division, no graphics cards period.

If nV or AMD doesn't like a branding of a particular AIB, they can just say sorry we aren't selling to you. Its their choice to make that happen. You think ASUS could stop that?

Look its like Intel vs nV with the IP of chip sets for motherboards. Intel didn't need nV anymore, they said screw you, you can't make them anymore, no more IP for you. Same thing here, we don't like your brand and sub brands, screw you, we won't sell to you.
Click to expand...
Nvidia is going to fuck everyone over and you are perfectly fine with it, we get it.

Nvidia is basically strong arming AIB and OEMs into this under the threat of losing chips, developmental access to new architectures, and support, there is no decision to be had by AIB's and OEM's, it's either volunteer or get fucked over for not doing what they say.

It's really not hard to understand, the only company that wins with this shit is Nvidia, which will fuck everyone over, particularly AMD and customers.
 
FearTheCow said:
Nvidia is going to fuck everyone over and you are perfectly fine with it, we get it.

Nvidia is basically strong arming AIB and OEMs into this under the threat of losing chips, developmental access to new architectures, and support, there is no decision to be had by AIB's and OEM's, it's either volunteer or get fucked over for not doing what they say.

It's really not hard to understand, the only company that wins with this shit is Nvidia, which will fuck everyone over, particularly AMD and customers.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying its ok, I'm saying they can do it if they want to and they are trying to do it with GPP. Take me out of the picture please. This isn't about me, this is about what nV thinks they want to do with THEIR BRAND.

As a consumer, we have no choice about it man. If nV doesn't want to sell to us, they don't need to either! Its their damn product dude. Its their products that made ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, major players in the graphics card market.
 
razor1 said:
I'm not saying its ok, I'm saying they can do it if they want to and they are trying to do it with GPP. Take me out of the picture please. This isn't about me, this is about what nV thinks they want to do with THEIR BRAND.

As a consumer, we have no choice about it man. If nV doesn't want to sell to us, they don't need to either! Its their damn product dude. Its their products that made ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, major players in the graphics card market.
Click to expand...

NV doesn't sell to consumers.

I think that is where your disconnect with what is happening here may be.

NV does not sell to end users.

NV has a small handful of customers and they are companies like yes Asus as it was Kyles example.

The large OEMS produced graphics boards long before NV was a company. NV is a parts supplier >.< They can aspire to be more if they wish but until they decide to go out and build their own fabs, manufacturing facilities, and build their own sales pipelines. That is ALL they are.

Delco doesn't get to tell GM how to market cars built with their product. This situation is no different. Of course Asus and the like wanna NV to be happy they design the chips in their cards... but they don't build the cards they don't sell the cards, and marketing created by the companies that do belongs to them and no one part supplier has the legal right to tell them how to go about that. (unless they sign those rights away.. which is the point) This is NV using their current market position to ensure they get to be the sole part supplier for "gaming" targeted cards. Which no matter what you wanna believe quite illegal... and unethical as hell.
 
ChadD said:
NV doesn't sell to consumers.

I think that is where your disconnect with what is happening here may be.

NV does not sell to end users.

NV has a small handful of customers and they are companies like yes Asus as it was Kyles example.

The large OEMS produced graphics boards long before NV was a company. NV is a parts supplier >.< They can aspire to be more if they wish but until they decide to go out and build their own fabs, manufacturing facilities, and build their own sales pipelines. That is ALL they are.

Delco doesn't get to tell GM how to market cars built with their product. This situation is no different. Of course Asus and the like wanna NV to be happy they design the chips in their cards... but they don't build the cards they don't sell the cards, and marketing created by the companies that do belongs to them and no one part supplier has the legal right to tell them how to go about that. (unless they sign those rights away.. which is the point) This is NV using their current market position to ensure they get to be the sole part supplier for "gaming" targeted cards. Which no matter what you wanna believe quite illegal... and unethical as hell.
Click to expand...


how is Delco relevant in this, it was a subsidiary of GM wasn't it? GM OWNED Delco. Of course Delco couldn't tell GM how to market GM cars lol.

The problem is nV designs the cards too, they give the specs to the AIB's to make their cards so the boards worth their GPU's. AIB's can't make their own GPU's.

That is not illegal man.

Take you for example, if you made the next pair of high price jeans and make a killing. You let another company put their own pockets on it. And sell them as Brand Y with your brand Z on them. You tell them don't modify my shit cause you don't like their look and don't put your brand name next to my brand name. Do they own your name that makes them money?

First off they had to get permission from you to do the modifications, just like AIB's need to stick with specs for the GPU's to function properly. They need to buy your product to sell it under their name. They are not entitled anything from you other then what they paid for, and if you don't like what they are doing with your brand you are entitled not to sell to them.

AIB's and OEM's aren't entailed because they sell others products. Its like going to Walmart and seeing Walmart brand or what ever retail name products, its not theirs, they are allowed to sell them under their name by the company that owns the products, if the company that owns those products doesn't like what Walmart is doing, they can pull their products. There is nothing Walmart can do about it, they have to go to another company that is it. With GPU's kinda hard to do that right now, but nothing illegal there.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
how is Delco relevant in this, it was a subsidiary of GM wasn't it? GM OWNED Delco. Of course Delco couldn't tell GM how to market GM cars lol.

The problem is nV designs the cards too, they give the specs to the AIB's to make their cards so the boards worth their GPU's. AIB's can't make their own GPU's.

That is not illegal man.

Take you for example, if you made the next pair of high price jeans and make a killing. You let another company put their own pockets on it. And sell them as Brand Y with your brand Z on them. You tell them don't modify my shit cause you don't like their look and don't put your brand name next to my brand name. Do they own your name that makes them money?

First off they had to get permission from you to do the modifications, just like AIB's need to stick with specs for the GPU's to function properly. They need to buy your product to sell it under their name. They are not entitled anything from you other then what they paid for, and if you don't like what they are doing with your brand you are entitled not to sell to them.

AIB's and OEM's aren't entailed because they sell others products. Its like going to Walmart and seeing Walmart brand or what ever retail name products, its not theirs, they are allowed to sell them under their name by the company that owns the products, if the company that owns those products doesn't like what Walmart is doing, they can pull their products. There is nothing Walmart can do about it, they have to go to another company that is it. With GPU's kinda hard to do that right now, but nothing illegal there.
Click to expand...
We are going to give you a break from this thread for a while. We all need a rest from your monopolization of the topic. We understand your point of view. As noted, we got it the first 50 times you said it.
 
They are selling under Nvidia's brand, it's called "geforce" and it's in big letters on the box.

Nvidia has 70% of the market and they have brand recognition, which comes back to the only real reason do this, is to try and fuck AMD over and create a monopoly by forcing AMD out by creating a situation that for all intents and purposes forces AIB's and OEM's to not advertise AMD in their gaming brands.
 
This has large amounts of carryover into the larger businesses as well IMO. I am thinking of things like HP Omen, Dell Alienware, MSI's line of Gx laptops, etc.

I wonder though if those companies will have scapegoats as they most likely have separate corporate businesses formed with those names already. If "HP Omen" is the business name, and not a "gaming" line... you see where I am going with this. Hopefully then, companies like Asus in the example could just form a "company" named ROG and bypass the silly "gaming line" requirement.

I think that this is a shady business strategy, but nothing that we haven't seen before. It is unfortunate when these type of inherent attempts and monopolization are just considered a norm (not legal) in the current world of business. And worse, when fines are assessed for tremendous amount's of money, they still always feel less than they should be when long term scope and market share is considered.
 
MarkVI said:
This is a straw man. Sure, the AIBs have every right to choose the branding of their parts. If you had read Kyle's article, you would understand that NVIDIA is potentially taking away that choice by not allowing the AIBs to choose to market both AMD and NVIDIA under the same branding. Let's not even get to number two because your first point doesn't make even the tiniest bit of sense.
Click to expand...

What i can't understand is how this is AMD's issue and not an AIB's issue.
Does AMD have any legal rights to the products that the AIBs sell, and they contain AMD processors inside ? i assume that the AIBs have bought-out from AMD the rights to sell her products and that's it.
For example : AMD sells processors to SONY as well as Microsoft for their consoles. AFTER these parts are sold, does AMD still has any legal leverage on what SONY or Microsoft will do with the stuff they bought from AMD ?
-If yes, then in our case with GPP, AMD could indeed claim that her interests are being damaged BUT If it's an AIB issue, then it's totally up to them to decide if their possible participation at GPP benefits them or not, so they can simply sign or not sign.
EDIT: ChadD Just noticed your post #634,
ROG doesn't belong to Nvidia. No OEM card makers brands belong to NV or AMD or any other part supplier. Perhaps Samsung should demand control over those brands cause they are using Samsung memory on the cards. Perhaps Samsung should tell all the OEMs they are cut off unless they only put samsungs best of the best most expensive offerings in their game lines, or tell them putting any other companies memory in their gaming line will result in loss of Gold member status. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed. NV / AMD are part suppliers in the relationship nothing more.
Click to expand...
and it answers exactly what i've been wondering!! so ,based on your arguments, we come down that the GPP it's only AIB's issue and AMD has no right to intervene, right?
 
Last edited:
Sith'ari said:
What i can't understand is how this is AMD's issue and not an AIB's issue.
Does AMD have any legal rights to the products that the AIBs sell, and they contain AMD processors inside ? i assume that the AIBs have bought-out from AMD the rights to sell her products and that's it.
For example : AMD sells processors to SONY as well as Microsoft for their consoles. AFTER these parts are sold, does AMD still has any legal leverage on what SONY or Microsoft will do with the stuff they bought from AMD ?
-If yes, then in our case with GPP, AMD could indeed claim that her interests are being damaged BUT If it's an AIB issue, then it's totally up to them to decide if their possible participation at GPP benefits them or not, so they can simply sign or not sign.
EDIT: ChadD Just noticed your post #634,

and it answers exactly what i've been wondering!! so ,based on your arguments, we come down that the GPP it's only AIB's issue and AMD has no right to intervene, right?
Click to expand...

Legally all this type of stuff is messy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

I'm not expert in competition law I will admit. I know this sounds like it falls into anti monopoly statues. So what I understand of US law there could be potential AMD vs and US Gov Vs type cases here. Exclusionary practices would be the term that would get used in court documents. Laws in the EU tend to be a lot more strict in this area and tend to end in fines. Where is in the US things tend to end up in Civil cases. So if we look at Intel vs AMD they settled in the US with AMD and where fined in the EU. Both north of a billion. In this case if this hasn't gotten underway at this point clearly that type of case isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the case of AMD vs Intel things went on for a long time... heck Dell almost went out of business when the Intel rebate program ended they got so used to the big fat Intel checks. Dell used that bump to sell at a price that grew their company fast.

In some ways this is also a bit similer to some of the smaller cases MS lost on smaller things like Windows Media player. The EU courts proved MS was in a dominate position and that inclusion, made it harder for third party media player companies to compete. If NV where to be proven to be in a dominate position (which I think they could argue against if the court looks at overall market share and not just a narrow segement like gaming) then according to say the EU courts NV would have, "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market." Based on what we have heard from Kyle I would say that for sure this program would be illegal in the EU (and they love dragging tech companies into court) NV defense in such a case I'm sure would be to claim they where not in fact dominate and point to AMD and Intel overall market share and hope the courts don't only look at gaming market share.
 
ChadD said:
Legally all this type of stuff is messy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

I'm not expert in competition law I will admit. I know this sounds like it falls into anti monopoly statues. So what I understand of US law there could be potential AMD vs and US Gov Vs type cases here. Exclusionary practices would be the term that would get used in court documents. Laws in the EU tend to be a lot more strict in this area and tend to end in fines. Where is in the US things tend to end up in Civil cases. So if we look at Intel vs AMD they settled in the US with AMD and where fined in the EU. Both north of a billion. In this case if this hasn't gotten underway at this point clearly that type of case isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the case of AMD vs Intel things went on for a long time... heck Dell almost went out of business when the Intel rebate program ended they got so used to the big fat Intel checks. Dell used that bump to sell at a price that grew their company fast.

In some ways this is also a bit similer to some of the smaller cases MS lost on smaller things like Windows Media player. The EU courts proved MS was in a dominate position and that inclusion, made it harder for third party media player companies to compete. If NV where to be proven to be in a dominate position (which I think they could argue against if the court looks at overall market share and not just a narrow segement like gaming) then according to say the EU courts NV would have, "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market." Based on what we have heard from Kyle I would say that for sure this program would be illegal in the EU (and they love dragging tech companies into court) NV defense in such a case I'm sure would be to claim they where not in fact dominate and point to AMD and Intel overall market share and hope the courts don't only look at gaming market share.
Click to expand...

All these are great info, but i want to focus at my previous question:
Legally, does AMD have any right to intervene into an agreement among 3rd companies such as NVidia and her AIBs ?
Just like you said before , "does Samsung has any right to guide the OEMs, just because it sells them some subparts for their products" ? Or just like i asked "Can AMD dictate to SONY or Microsoft what to do with their stuff, just because it sells them the GPU processors" ?
As i said, logically speaking, this hole GPProgram is down to AIBs to decide whether or not it's beneficial to them , and AMD doesn't have any right to intervene with agreements among 3rd companies.
 
fingerbob69 said:
Who does 'ROG' belong to? And who therefore gets to decide what tech goes into it? Hint: it is not ...or rather.... it should not be nVidia.
Click to expand...

Yes it belongs to Asus and they can keep it that way by not joining GPP. See how easy that is?
 
Come on AMD, make some GPUs that actually compete. I want to ditch nvidia, but i will not downgrade my hardware just because of some busniess practice that any company (including AMD) would resort to if they had the ability to.

I need 4k60 @ high/ultra and right now only the 1080 Ti can deliver.
 
reaper12 said:
whoosh, this whole debate and it's implications went way over your head, didn't it?
Click to expand...

how much i like statements which are using concrete & logical arguments!!:rolleyes: You know, since you are mocking people who dare to express their opinion , at least, please do bother to explain us the reasons that you disagree with those you mock...;)
 
Sith'ari said:
how much i like statements which are using concrete & logical arguments!!:rolleyes: You know, since you are mocking people who dare to express their opinion , at least, please do bother to explain us the reasons that you disagree with those you mock...;)
Click to expand...

Because there are a lot of people that keep coming back into the debate, 17 pages in, making the same arguments that entirely miss the point of Kyles article, causing these arguments to go in circles as we have to explain the basics of the entire issue to them.

Yes it belongs to Asus and they can keep it that way by not joining GPP. See how easy that is?
Click to expand...

And they can decide to stay away from GPP at their own peril. It shouldn't be that way, but if you read the article, which I'm sure you did, NVIDIA is withholding a bunch of benefits to board partners that will basically make these board partners completely noncompetitive, the GPU industry less competitive as a whole as well, which you know, was the whole point of the article. Ignoring the article and making the same weak argument is borderline trolling.
 
SimianRob said:
1)Because there are a lot of people that keep coming back into the debate, 17 pages in, making the same arguments that entirely miss the point of Kyles article, causing these arguments to go in circles as we have to explain the basics of the entire issue to them.

2)And they can decide to stay away from GPP at their own peril. It shouldn't be that way, but if you read the article, which I'm sure you did, NVIDIA is withholding a bunch of benefits to board partners that will basically make these board partners completely noncompetitive, the GPU industry less competitive as a whole as well, which you know, was the whole point of the article. Ignoring the article and making the same weak argument is borderline trolling.
Click to expand...

1)So, how it gets better, if someone adds a post in which simply mocks someone? at least, he should bother to explain his own arguments.
2) !!! Do you know a company that gives away free benefits without asking something in return ??? of course, this is a give & take kind of agreement. If the participants feel that this deal is against their interests, they can simply reject it !!
 
fingerbob69 said:
Oh yes and I do. But while it is surprising how many here don't.... not joining is not being presented as a creditable choice.
Click to expand...
And if Company X does not commit to its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce," a massive loss of current marketing perks will occur. NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

I have seen this spelled out in documentation and verified it with other OEMs.

So basically you allow GeForce to become your exclusive gaming part, or suffer the loss of benefits the company already has in its current marketing plan.
 
SimianRob said:
I've never seen so many people salivating at the potential for a market leader to become an outright monopoly. The amount of comments from people trying to spin this into another "good business move" from NVIDIA is pretty telling. I mean the AIB's have been able to market their products as they see fit for 20+ years but now apparently it's a serious problem, brand recognition is being diluted, something needs to be done!

From a legal standpoint I don't think it's ever black and white. I think AMD would have to try to prove damages and since the program is just ramping up it would probably be a few years of it being in place for there to be a significant enough effect on the market for AMD to be able to make that sort of claim. If you look at the AMD/Intel case it took years for them to receive compensation and one has to wonder whether it was enough considering the business they lost. I think the strategy here is to put pressure on NVIDIA to alter the program to give AIB's more control of their brand and if that doesn't work pursue a long costly legal avenue if that's the only option.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason to go public with this information. Amazing how many so called legal experts we have in the [H]. :) I personally prefer AMD products for my builds and as a piece of hardware itself, I have no issues recommending Intel or Nvidia of others. That said, this GPP stuff is not built on having a stronger or better product for Nvidia but upon their manipulation of the market. Hopefully, this will give them a real slap in the face, multiple times.
 
ManofGod said:
Hence the reason to go public with this information. Amazing how many so called legal experts we have in the [H]. :) I personally prefer AMD products for my builds and as a piece of hardware itself, I have no issues recommending Intel or Nvidia of others. That said, this GPP stuff is not built on having a stronger or better product for Nvidia but upon their manipulation of the market. Hopefully, this will give them a real slap in the face, multiple times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I said in the post ;) AMD is clearly trying to put pressure on NVIDIA by bringing the story to the media, but if what Kyle is saying is true there could be legal action down the road as well.
 
fingerbob69 said:
That moves it passed the 'nod and a wink' phase and into the 'meet my lawyer' phase...right?

Any comment from Asus or MSI yet?

As I'm in the UK , can you confirm that this something nVidia want AIB/OEMs to do in all their world markets or is it limited to the US?
Click to expand...
No on the record comments from ASUS or MSI.

This is a global program as verified with documentation and interviews.
 
Dan_D said:
You rarely see a car dealership that sells more than one brand unless those brands are owned by the same company. You can't just open a car dealership in the middle of the network as there are rules against it. .
Click to expand...


Gary Lang in Mchenry, IL has GM (Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, GMC) Kia, Mitsu and Subaru. They're in bed with quite a few MFRs.
 
Look to all the boiler room barristers:

Lawyers are very clever, especially ones that work for large multinationals. You will not be able to determine if AMD can sue nVidia or not, or what legal remedies or slight of hand each company could use.

On topic:

This program is shitty. Let's see the basics; changing long held business practices to the detriment of your partners that helped build the brand. Demanding control over partners existing brands. Forced naming compliance using a generic term (gamer). tis the slimeball classic.

It's all been said in this thread, it's time to see what happens.

Edit: spelling, yay phone.
 
Last edited:
All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
Click to expand...
Top brands won't, but the mid brands will for the benefits. Think Zotac or PNY, who are Nvidia only. Then, the competing brands that do both will follow suit to compete, and it will spread from there.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
Click to expand...
I was just informed through a solid source that ASUS and MSI have already signed on to do NVIDIA GPP. I have not been able to verify this information with ASUS or MSI yet, and I doubt I will be able to.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
Click to expand...

I think sadly they will ALL sign. Big and small.

What NV is tying up in this plan is just to much to say no to. Contracts are not public... so if you are in charge of a company that sells 10s of millions worth of product and your main part supplier is threatening to cut supply do you gamble that your competition isn't going to take the bait ? If even only a couple of them do and are the companies releasing new GPU based cards months before you can is it worth rolling those dice.

As Kyle has mentioned as well the real worrying aspect of all this is tying Marketing and "development" funds up into this. Believe it or not the margins in computer hardware are very very low. A lot of companies basically rely on financial advantages of Marketing money. Every advertising salesman in the world knows your best pitch is always tax advantages of spending marketing money. Every company spends money on marketing because due to tax advantages a % of income is basically free. If you can legally offer a supplier (think of all the Coke/Pepsi co marketing in the world where a store will run a print ad or something which features their logos) some specific service (such as shelf space, or selling *cough* selling sole rights to name placement ect) you can then claim those co-funds as further income. Famously Dell did just that with Intel rebates for being Intel exclusive for years... when that had to end Dell almost went belly up they leaned on that so hard, the write down they had to take was almost the end.

So the worry here is I don't believe even the big boy OEMs really have much choice but to sign on here. The point I'm slowly getting to is a lot of these NV marketing fund schemes are already in place, this program just threatens to end them. Which I would be willing to bet a few of the big OEMs have very much woven into their business model... loosing them simply ins't an option.
 
ChadD said:
I think sadly they will ALL sign. Big and small.
Click to expand...

What is shitty, and it has been said (of course in 17 pages), is that nVidia is the only real option for high end gaming, especially if you want the best/halo product... ugh.
 
Aireoth said:
What is shitty, and it has been said (of course in 17 pages), is that nVidia is the only real option for high end gaming, especially if you want the best/halo product... ugh.
Click to expand...
And what happens when/if NV is not the only "real option" down the road. It puts AMD at a credible disadvantage in the market when/if that happens.

I am not anti-NVIDIA. If you ask me what GPU to buy right now, most likely, depending your usage scenario, I am going to tell you to buy an NV GPU. But things do change, and while you can say that this does not change the marketplace, I do think it could be a big impact on the market should it change down the road...and it "always" does.
 
I been holding off like a lot of other people I don't really wanna buy second hand. Having said that I'm a big Linux guy and spend many hours gaming under Linux. I have stuck with NV the last few generations mainly because their Linux drivers are solid. (even though they are closed sourced). I was already leaning going back to AMD soon anyway due to their continued support for open standards and the fact that they have 100% completely open sourced their drivers at this point, even for new standards such as Vulcan. This story pretty much puts it over the top for me. It sounds like my next GPU will not be a "gaming" board... but I guess in most cases that simply means the card won't look as pretty. lol :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top